6 ms·

Intel to Universities: No Patents, Please, Just Open Source

72 points by hendi_ 15y ago

noonespecial 15y ago
"So how did they finally fix the patent system, Grandpa?" "They didn't. Nobody could. Over the years, people just got tired of the bullshit and quit using it."
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  The problem is they still go after open-source software with patent infringement claims (look at Microsoft).
0x12 15y ago
The catch here is of course that intel is a hardware company. In 2010 alone intel received 1600+ patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_patent_recipients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_paten... If intel wants to stop the patent madness they could start with removing themselves from that top 10.
- kevingadd 15y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure that if they suddenly stop filing patents, they'll have absolutely no trouble continuing to build microprocessors. It's not like their competitors will patent things (taking advantage of our brilliant new First To File system) and then take Intel to court for every penny they have...
- chucknthem 15y ago
  "Intel follows in the footsteps of HP and IBM, who also fund open source software collaborations with university researchers" IBM is consistently #1 on that list too
- RexRollman 15y ago
  Companies almost have to own patents these day; for defensive reasons if nothing else.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    The problem is patent trolls are immune to this kind of defense.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Hardware patents are not a huge part of the madness. Design, business process and software patents, however, usually are.
  - kyleburton 15y ago
    As nano-tech advances and replicators become more commonplace, hardware will face the same issues with patents and the seeming absurdity of patenting an 'obvious idea'.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > As nano-tech advances and replicators become more commonplace, I think we should leave science fiction out of the legal system. It is already overburdened dealing with problems we have and doesn't need to deal with the problems we may someday have.
jamieb 15y ago
I have difficulty reading that page, with light grey text on a grey, "hand-drawn", graph-paper background.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  Something has gone wrong with your rendering. The text is supposed to be on a white background. #555555 text looks just fine like that. Edit: It may have been a server error but only to some people? It's unclear from the comments on the site.
tibbon 15y ago
The rest of the world to Intel: No Patents, Just Open Source...
brlewis 15y ago
The money quote: In search of better margins, Intel hopes to beef up its software practice to combat increasingly thin profit margins from chip sales. Intel has plenty of large competitors in the software area. Still, they expect to make more money thanks to the existence of free software. Contrast this to those who say there's no way to make money if others can copy you.
maxharris 15y ago
How would universities get paid for the research they facilitate if this were the standard practice? My university would have to close or curtail its activities in nearly unimaginable ways without the billions of dollars that the research foundation has generated honestly (via things brought into existence by UW researchers: without their minds, their work/results/products would not exist). Incidentally, my university also sued Intel recently over a patent dispute and won.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  I don't have a problem with a university owning a patent unless the work was somehow funded by the Federal Government, in which case it should be disallowed.
  - nobody314159 15y ago
    What about the university using research funds to defend the patent? If you have a patent you have to defend it and prosecute to make money from it. That costs lawyers. At one point do you decide it would be cheaper to just allow the world to benefit from the invention rather than spend your entire budget on a legal case? Are we going to have universities forming patent groups to fight other universities?
- _delirium 15y ago
  The amount of money generated for universities by patents on CS/engineering research is quite small, though. The total for all fields in 2009 (according to an unfortunately paywalled report: http://chronicle.com/article/Table-Licensing-Revenue-and/125729/ http://chronicle.com/article/Table-Licensing-Revenue-and/125...) was $1.8 billion, of which the vast majority went to a handful of schools for blockbuster biotech patents (e.g., NYU has been pulling in $100m+ annually from the Remicade patents). I would be surprised if UW non-bio patents are bringing in more than low-single-digit millions, i.e. not much compared to what they get in corporate donations, not to mention NSF and DARPA grants, and even the state subsidy and tuition. The former Dean of Georgia Tech's CS dept quotes John Hurt from the NSF as claiming: "Of 3,200 universities, perhaps six have made significant amounts of money from their intellectual property rights." I don't think there have been any blockbuster university (non-bio) tech patents since the Akamai (MIT) / PageRank (Stanford) pair ten years ago.

72 points by hendi_ 15y ago

"So how did they finally fix the patent system, Grandpa?" "They didn't. Nobody could. Over the years, people just got tired of the bullshit and quit using it."

nextparadigms 15y ago
The problem is they still go after open-source software with patent infringement claims (look at Microsoft).

0x12 15y ago

The catch here is of course that intel is a hardware company. In 2010 alone intel received 1600+ patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_patent_recipients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_paten... If intel wants to stop the patent madness they could start with removing themselves from that top 10.

kevingadd 15y ago
Yeah, I'm sure that if they suddenly stop filing patents, they'll have absolutely no trouble continuing to build microprocessors. It's not like their competitors will patent things (taking advantage of our brilliant new First To File system) and then take Intel to court for every penny they have...
chucknthem 15y ago
"Intel follows in the footsteps of HP and IBM, who also fund open source software collaborations with university researchers" IBM is consistently #1 on that list too
RexRollman 15y ago
Companies almost have to own patents these day; for defensive reasons if nothing else.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  The problem is patent trolls are immune to this kind of defense.
rbanffy 15y ago
Hardware patents are not a huge part of the madness. Design, business process and software patents, however, usually are.
- kyleburton 15y ago
  As nano-tech advances and replicators become more commonplace, hardware will face the same issues with patents and the seeming absurdity of patenting an 'obvious idea'.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > As nano-tech advances and replicators become more commonplace, I think we should leave science fiction out of the legal system. It is already overburdened dealing with problems we have and doesn't need to deal with the problems we may someday have.

jamieb 15y ago

I have difficulty reading that page, with light grey text on a grey, "hand-drawn", graph-paper background.

Dylan16807 15y ago
Something has gone wrong with your rendering. The text is supposed to be on a white background. #555555 text looks just fine like that. Edit: It may have been a server error but only to some people? It's unclear from the comments on the site.

tibbon 15y ago

The rest of the world to Intel: No Patents, Just Open Source...

brlewis 15y ago

The money quote: In search of better margins, Intel hopes to beef up its software practice to combat increasingly thin profit margins from chip sales. Intel has plenty of large competitors in the software area. Still, they expect to make more money thanks to the existence of free software. Contrast this to those who say there's no way to make money if others can copy you.

maxharris 15y ago

How would universities get paid for the research they facilitate if this were the standard practice? My university would have to close or curtail its activities in nearly unimaginable ways without the billions of dollars that the research foundation has generated honestly (via things brought into existence by UW researchers: without their minds, their work/results/products would not exist). Incidentally, my university also sued Intel recently over a patent dispute and won.

RexRollman 15y ago
I don't have a problem with a university owning a patent unless the work was somehow funded by the Federal Government, in which case it should be disallowed.
- nobody314159 15y ago
  What about the university using research funds to defend the patent? If you have a patent you have to defend it and prosecute to make money from it. That costs lawyers. At one point do you decide it would be cheaper to just allow the world to benefit from the invention rather than spend your entire budget on a legal case? Are we going to have universities forming patent groups to fight other universities?
_delirium 15y ago
The amount of money generated for universities by patents on CS/engineering research is quite small, though. The total for all fields in 2009 (according to an unfortunately paywalled report: http://chronicle.com/article/Table-Licensing-Revenue-and/125729/ http://chronicle.com/article/Table-Licensing-Revenue-and/125...) was $1.8 billion, of which the vast majority went to a handful of schools for blockbuster biotech patents (e.g., NYU has been pulling in $100m+ annually from the Remicade patents). I would be surprised if UW non-bio patents are bringing in more than low-single-digit millions, i.e. not much compared to what they get in corporate donations, not to mention NSF and DARPA grants, and even the state subsidy and tuition. The former Dean of Georgia Tech's CS dept quotes John Hurt from the NSF as claiming: "Of 3,200 universities, perhaps six have made significant amounts of money from their intellectual property rights." I don't think there have been any blockbuster university (non-bio) tech patents since the Akamai (MIT) / PageRank (Stanford) pair ten years ago.